The burden of proof seems unfairly high in this thread. For example this statement would be enough for me:

"Conditioning my hands has made me able to break things that I used to not be able to break."

However the opponents in this thread seem to want evidence that it is not only effective but contributes to some sort of bone growth that specifically aids striking.

If you could substantiate that claim, you’d have hit gold. The problem is that “I condition my hands, and I can break things I never used to be able to break” is a very different statement from “I condition my hands, I can break things that I never used to be able to break, and the hand conditioning is why I can now break them”.

Suppose you condition your hands over a period of ten years; suppose your breaking skills improve over the same period of time; how do you substantiate the claim that the conditioning is the reason for your improved breaking skills, rather than just improved technique?

I regularly strike the makiwara. I find it very enjoyable and feel that it does help develop penetrating power and focus. I also believe that it strengthens the wrists in the context of striking. I have it lightly padded, and use it in conjunction with the heavy bag. The two have different feelings, and different feedbacks. My goal was never to develop huge callouses. As far repeatedly striking stones and such, it is very risky, and you could end up not being able to tie your shoelaces. But then, that's a small price to pay to be able to shatter a charging samurai's shield.

I also am very public with anyone wanting to come visit and see what I do.

Time is short and I would rather train, and plus I have 30 + hours of acupuncture and herb classes that I should worry about more than a pissing contest.

Be well, brother.

If that's REALLY how you mean it, fine, but you post "Come to so and so and meet me and we'll discuss it" quite a bit when you're being asked questions. What are you going to show me in person about this topic that you don't think you can explain to me here?

There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.

Let's put it this way, court rules of evidence usually follow some semblance of logic. You can ask the court to take judicial notice of readily verifiable facts: for example Los Angeles is in the state of California. Water flows downhill. Obama is President. The proposition that bone-conditioning aids karateka in combat because it makes their bones harder and thus able to strike harder wouldn't even be a close call. It's really, in fact, a rather fantastic proposition which is backed up by a LOT of anecdotal evidence. Now anecdotal evidence may be weak, but that doesn't mean that it isn't evidence. That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making this proposition. In other words, you pro-bone conditioning folks are assuming facts that are not in evidence.